Opinion
Case No. 2:02-cv-045b
December 29, 2003
ORDER
Before the Court is Leonard-Shryl Brown's demand for a writ of habeas corpus cum causa. (Docket No. 1,) There is currently no procedure in federal court known as habeas corpus cum causa. Such a writ existed at common law in civil cases to remove a case from an inferior court to a superior court and is more properly known as habeas corpus faciendum et recipiendum. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. p 715 (1999). At the heart of Brown's "petition" is a "DEMAND for a Declaratory Order." (Pet., p. 2.) The Court therefore construes Brown's pro se petition liberally and treats Brown's petition as a motion for a declaratory order. See United States v. Rourke, 984 F.2d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 1992).
Mr Brown requests the Court to issue a declaratory order stating that the "criminal indictment must commence under common law upon a sworn statement of an injured party with first hand knowledge of the crime." (Pet, p. 2.) Even construing Brown's petition liberally does not help his cause as Brown has not related any facts or submitted any evidence in the form of affidavits or otherwise that would persuade the Court that Brown's request for a declaratory order should be granted.
Accordingly, Mr. Brown's demand for a writ of habeas corpus cum causa is DENIED.